Some say that the Supreme Court sometimes considers public opinion on issues they . If that’s the case with the Obama adminstration’s health care law, then it should be extremely worried about what’s to come:
More than two-thirds of Americans hope the Supreme Court will overturn some or all of

the 2010 health care law, according to a new poll conducted by The New York Times and CBS News. Just 24 percent said they hoped the court “would keep the entire health care law in place.”

The Supreme Court is expected to decide a challenge to the law by the end of this month.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said the court should strike down the entire law, and another 27 percent said the justices should overturn only the individual mandate, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty.

These numbers have not changed much in recent months and appeared to be largely unaffected by the more than six hours of arguments in the Supreme Court in March.

There was greater Republican opposition to the law than Democratic support. About two-thirds of Republicans in the recent survey said the entire law should be overturned, while 43 percent of Democrats said all of the law should be upheld.

More than 70 percent of independent voters said they wanted to see some or all of the law struck down, with a majority saying they hoped to see the whole law overturned. Twenty-two percent of independents said they hoped the entire law would survive.

Responses varied by education, too. Nearly a third of respondents with a college education said they would like to see the law upheld, compared with about 20 percent of those without a college degree.

Legal scholars and political scientists are divided over whether the justices take account of public opinion in making their decisions.

And call it fate…destiny…coincidence, whatever but:

The Supreme Court ruling will come this month. And the summers have traditionally been brutal for Obama and the Democrats — and June could be brutal, indeed:
Just one week old, June already is proving a cruel month for President Barack Obama and the Democrats — and it could get a lot worse.

The political blows from Tuesday’s bitter loss in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial recall and from last week’s abysmal unemployment numbers, bad as they were, could multiply before the month is out.

The Supreme Court will pass judgment shortly on the president’s signature legislative achievement — the 2010 law overhauling the nation’s health care system — and also will decide on his administration’s challenge to Arizona’s tough immigration law. If Chief Justice John Roberts and the court strike down all or part of the health care law, it could demoralize Democrats who invested more than a year — and quite a few political careers — to secure the bill’s passage.

And in Arizona, aside from the big immigration case, the Democrats are fighting to hold onto the House seat of Gabrielle Giffords, who resigned in January to focus on recovering from her gunshot wound. In next Tuesday’s special election, former Giffords aide Ron Barber is locked in a close race with Republican Jesse Kelly, who lost to her in 2010 by just 4,156 votes.

Facing an election-year summer fraught with political peril, the Democrats are struggling to revive supporters’ spirits and counteract developments that could energize Republicans and solidify public opinion that the country is on the wrong track and in need of new leadership.

In a video pep talk to supporters this week, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina acknowledged the challenge. “We need to stay focused, work hard and ignore the ups and downs,” he said.

A defeat on health care would most assuredly qualify as a “down.”

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2012 The Moderate Voice
  • RP

    Ineptness of the Democrats led to this situation. Had Pelosi “read the bill” she would have realized using the tax authorization of the constitution would have created a bill that would never have made it to SCOTUS. But using the commerce clause for something that it was never intended to be used for allowed a challenge to the bill.

    I for one support the legislation, but hope it is overturned since I do not beleive congress will not use the commerce clause in future years to mandate some program just to avoid the word “tax”.

    And I believe if one researches the republicans mandate for catastrophic coverage in the 90’s, this was proposed under the taxing authorizations and not the commerce clause.

  • ShannonLeee

    yikes, not good numbers for HCR.

    I think removing the mandate would basically gut the law, so it would have been nice if that option was not available. It is a nice out for those that like the idea of the bill, but dont like being told what to do.

    Nevertheless, I seriously doubt that most of those that want the mandate removed would still support it given the choice of all or nothing.

  • PATRICK EDABURN, Assistant Editor

    Those numbers are not good for HCR.

    Only 42% of *Democrats* want the court to uphold the entire law and only 20% of Independents.

  • wesleypresley

    American health care is too expensive for most wage earners and it will only get worse. The upside to that is Americans will be a sicker and weaker people thus won’t be able to sustain long wars. Plus the country will be in decline giving other lands around the world a chance to take more of a role in world leadership.
    About the same number who oppose health care for most Americans are about the same number that believe in creationism.
    Americans eat too much junk food and just as it has given them diabetes and injured their hearts, it has also rotten their brains.

  • But if you get into the details of what the law, most Americans support it. It’s a matter of Americans listening too much to talking points instead of understanding what the law actually does.

    This disconnect is why the GOP is now making noises of keeping the popular parts of the law like getting rid of preexisting condition exclusions, lifetime limits and letting kids stay on their parents’ plan until they’re 26, and canning the unpopular parts. Which of course, would balloon the costs of the law because the mandate helps pay for those things.

    They’re saying “Oh look! You can have your cake. Eat it and not have to pay a dime for it!” It’s Medicare Part D all over again.

  • RP

    isilwath…yes most Americans do support the law, but there is a large number who oppose the mandate. Guess when someone is told by the government they must buy something, then they begin to rebel.

    Again, had the legislation been written where the mandate was a tax, was included with the individuals tax return and then they were assigned to a health exchange, this would not even be questioned.

    But the answer to the whole healthcare issue is a one payor system and elimination of all the various healthcare insurance companies offering many different systems. Medicare for all, no questions asked with a payroll tax to fund the program. And then have the tax adjust annually to account for changes in the program cost to avoid any future funding problems like we have with Medicare today.

  • slamfu

    I don’t think they had an option to call it a tax. They aren’t taxing, they are basically telling people they have to buy insurance from private carriers. That wouldn’t qualify as a tax would it? Its basically the same thing they do for auto insurance in CA, we have to buy it or get fined. I think something like the Commerce Clause applies much more to that.

    But the real answer is single payer, but I think the Dems were trying to meet the GOP in the middle on healthcare and this is what they came up with, then the GOP changed the goal line again, demonized their own idea, blamed it on the Dems as socialism, and punted to the supreme court.

  • Ginger

    As someone who has just gone through the hell of Insurance companies trying to wiggle out of their obligations when a real illness occurs, I can only say that we ABSOLUTELY NEED OBAMACARE! The Insurance companies price you out of the ability to pay for insurance once you have had a real illness. And as was the case with United Oxford healthcare, they then say, well “we cover Cancer, but we don’t cover Chemo. Even if it’s in your book. Your book is not the correct book!” I’m not kidding. Then the hoops and whistles I had to perform to find new insurance while recovering from a double mastectomy would make a circus dog proud. And let’s talk about the cost to the system when someone like me gets sick and doesn’t have insurance…one treatment of the chemo anti-body blocking drug Herceptin…$ 25,000. And
    $ 3,000 to administer it. Times that by 25 treatments and you have yourself bankruptcy. But the hospital picks up the tab. So, everyone must have insurance, make it affordable with government subsidies to the poor. But you are required to have insurance to drive a car. And let’s face it, whether we like it or not, we will at some point in our lives use the health care services and it is wrong to sponge off of those who have insurance. Where do you think all those extra costs go? To the increased cost for those who are insured who then have to pay higher costs for treatment that factors in the costs to the hospital for the uninsured, and then gets translated into higher and higher premiums.

  • rudi

    The American public is just as stupid today as 30 years ago. In our race to the bottom, we’ll be riding dinosaurs off the edge of the flat Earth…

    1/2 of Americans reject evolution, believe creationism
    Poll: Respondents’ views about origin of mankind are virtually same 30 years later
    Published: 24 hours ago

    (NEW YORK DAILY NEWS) — Nearly half of Americans — 46% — believe God created the human race in a single day 10,000 years ago, a newly-released Gallup poll found.

    The poll revealed that Americans’ ideas about the origin of mankind have remained virtually unchanged in the 30 years Gallup has surveyed on the topic.

    “All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins,” Frank Newport, Ph.D., Gallup’s editor in chief wrote.
    Read the full story ›

  • DaveFrancis

    Republican Rep. Ben Quayle of Arizona has cosponsored three immigration bills from the list of bills that make up NumbersUSA “5 Reduction Immigration bills” Rep. Quayle has now cosponsored bills in 4 of our 5 categories – only omitted a bill to end the Visa Lottery. That bill, H.R.704 introduced by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, has already been approved by the House Judiciary Committee and can no longer add more cosponsors. Rep. Qualye serves on the Judiciary Committee and voted for H.R.704 during markup.

    Last week, Rep. Qualye co-sponsored:

    H.R.100 – The CLEAR Act presented by Rep. Marsha Blackburn would augment interior enforcement by requiring federal immigration officials to cooperate with local law enforcement agents. It also provides full backing for SCAAP, which compensates states that incarcerate criminal illegal aliens.

    H.R.140 – The Birthright Citizenship Act introduced by Rep. Steve King would end Birthright Citizenship, requiring that at least one parent of a child born in the United States be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident. The U.S. is one of only two developed nations (Canada) to still offer Birthright Citizenship. This is a hundred billion dollar expenditure for taxpayers Smuggled children that inherit instant citizenship through misguided laws, which have not been tested in the Supreme Court. Another unfunded mandate, that is part of uncompensated mandates such as education through high school graduation, free health treatments from the common cold to expensive surgeries paid by YOU. An overcrowded prison system full of criminal aliens that are to blame for high percentages of wicked acts in the U.S. Then a kaleidoscope of welfare programs manipulated by both parties, giving access to programs, denied to our citizens and legal residents.

    H.R. 692 – The Nuclear Family Priority Act introduced by Rep. Phil Gingrey would finish Chain Migration. The bill would reform the family preference visa categories to only allow nuclear family members (spouses and minor children) that are foreign nationals to receive green cards. The bill would also create a provisional, but renewable visa for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. Eliminating Chain Migration was a recommendation of the bi-partisan Barbara Jordan Commission issued in 1995 and would have the greatest impact in reducing overall immigration numbers.

    H.R. 2885 – Already well sponsored is Mandatory E-Verify, which was initially sponsored by Senator Lamar Smith of Texas. The bill entitled ‘The Legal Workforce Bill’ (H.R.2885) has been blocked by House speaker, John Boehner of Ohio and Dave Camp of Michigan, who is Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Americans must insist these lawmakers. E-Verify have gained a success rate nationwide, but is still only voluntary. We must insist both parties place (H.R.2885) to be presented on the house floor without delay. Millions of Americans that remain jobless would benefit highly from mandatory E-Verify. This computer based government application can detect illegal workers and reject them from every business—large and small—with heavy punishment for indifferent company owners. Farmers are just as incorrigible as they pay little or nothing towards the illegal aliens they employ, leaving the medical treatment, schooling and welfare benefits for the state taxpayer to cover.

    Just these few zero tolerant bills, could begin a slow, but gaining departure of foreign nationals. Many will flee to Sanctuary States as California, Nevada, but nationwide mandatory laws would even end this.

    Years of intentional encouragement by both political parties, has erupted in a major response from anti-illegal alien organizations, including NumbersUSA, Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC), The Heritage foundation, The Federation for Immigration Reform, Judicial Watch and thousands of more groups, blogs available to all readers across the Internet.

    Employment visas should only be granted to professional people and STEM workers (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) workers to the U.S. in an expedited process. The Constitutional TEA PARTY is gaining in power and will unseat liberal Democrat-Republican pro-illegal immigration politicians, derailing open border zealot ideologies. Lastly we must oversee all elections, as Democrats are indifferent to illegal aliens voting, which is carefully hidden; surf the Internet for information on voter fraud and ID theft that has been gaining momentum in the last two decades. Read the latest irregularities by checking Florida.

    Join your local TEA PARTY (THE CONSTITUTIONAL PEOPLE’S PARTY) and fight back, before it’s too late. The Tea Party is huge and still increasing and ready to throw out corrupt lawmakers. The Tea Party will not tolerate in any shape or form Amnesty, or as carefully worded Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Even the Dream Act is a form of Amnesty, which can lead to more Chain Migration. This is the time to empty the sleaze from Washington. WE MUST RID OURSELVES OF THE TAX AND SPEND LAWMAKERS. Read in order by state the good politicians we have in congress at the ALIPAC website. Discover for yourself who in state and federal tiers of government, which incumbents should be dumped and who is really working for the American people? This will be crucial in the coming months as we head towards the most significant election of our lifetime. Study your states costs to pay for the financial support of the illegal alien invasion. Call your Senator and Congressman at the Washington, DC. , Switchboard 202-224-3121 and demand they pass these above mentioned laws. Only citizens have the right to vote, although the liberal Democrats have tried to conceal it, illegal aliens have been voting in large numbers for years.

    Anti-illegal immigration personages as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State, Senator Sessions of Arkansas, Tea Party Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker are some of a few standing alone, so we need to support these individuals. For without these two men the liberals Democrats, Republicans we would have open borders and no interior enforcement whatsoever.

  • The_Ohioan

    isi has the answer. And it will be as big a scam as Medicare Part D was, no one made out but the Pharmacy companies.

  • Dr. J

    Isilwath is right, if the poll had included questions about what’s actually in HCR, I’m sure the numbers would have been much lower.

    A tax would have been a cleaner way to fund it, but a politically unpalatable one. The mandate is essentially a tax on the young and healthy, and HCR even includes requirements that will inflict disproportionately high premiums on the young. Can you imagine the screeching on TMV had Congress proposed a tax for being 27 years old?

  • zephyr

    I seriously doubt that 2/3 of Americans even know what they’re opining about half the time. You know what they say about opinions…

  • jefndenver

    RP wrote: “Had Pelosi “read the bill” she would have realized using the tax authorization of the constitution would have created a bill that would never have made it to SCOTUS.”

    The Senate version included the tax authority language. The “penalty” language was agreed to in conference (to match the House version). Either way, it would have ended up in front of SCOTUS because the very first day of hearings was on the tax issue and Justice Breyer, probably the most consistent progressive voice on the court, stated that the provision barring them from intervening was only to protect the nation’s revenue stream and this does not do that. Besides, do you really think the court won’t stretch to hear a case they desperately want to decide?

  • RP

    jefndenver..Yes it could be that the case would still be in front of the court with a taxing provision, but I doubt that the bill itself would depend on the arguement if congress had the authority to tax like it does today with congress using the commerce clause for authority. I could be wrong.

    And the penalty clause was used in the house version so the democrats in the house would not have to run for reelection after voting for legislation that had a huge tax increase attached to it. Here is where Pelosi chickened out.